Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) was “stripped” of her ability to “defend election lawsuits” by the state’s Republican-led House Appropriations Committee

After publicly expressing “grave concerns” over Arizona’s audit of the 2020 election results, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) was “stripped” of her ability to “defend election lawsuits” by the state’s Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, reported Arizona’s ABC 15 on Tuesday. The duty was transferred “exclusively” to Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) through the end of the 2023 fiscal year.

Democrats say the move is retaliation against Hobbs’ defense of Arizona voters in “lawsuits filed by the State Republican Party and others challenging Arizona’s election results,” per ABC 15. “It can’t be just a coincidence” that Republicans are blocking a “vocal critic of the audit,” writes Elvia Díaz for azcentral.com. Democratic State Rep. Randy Friese reportedly called the move “troubling,” “disturbing,” and “quite nefarious.”

https://s.yimg.com/rq/darla/4-6-0/html/r-sf.html

Furthermore, the Appropriations Committee removed Hobb’s “oversight of the Capitol Museum,” ABC 15 reports, after Hobbs angered state lawmakers when she “flew a gay pride flag from the building’s balcony” in 2019.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X2VtYmVkX2NsaWNrYWJpbGl0eV8xMjEwMiI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJjb250cm9sIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1397245530972041222&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Farizonas-secretary-state-stripped-duties-212020423.html&sessionId=c3d12c069fb9f534bc98dc6b9c0e94807ce39a00&siteScreenName=YahooNews&theme=light&widgetsVersion=82e1070%3A1619632193066&width=550px

In an article for azfamily.com, Hobbs labeled the entire audit “a political stunt,” adding that it is “dangerous to people’s safety and to the integrity of our democracy.”

She later tweeted a photo on Tuesday of a fruit basket sent by Stacey Abrams and Fair Fight, saying that’s how “you know you’re doing it right.”

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-1&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X2VtYmVkX2NsaWNrYWJpbGl0eV8xMjEwMiI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJjb250cm9sIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1397217144077697027&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Farizonas-secretary-state-stripped-duties-212020423.html&sessionId=c3d12c069fb9f534bc98dc6b9c0e94807ce39a00&siteScreenName=YahooNews&theme=light&widgetsVersion=82e1070%3A1619632193066&width=550px

The Insanity of the PCR Tests

STORY AT-A-GLANCE –

  • Curative offers a PCR test using spit rather than swabs from the back of your nasal cavity. Initially only authorized for use on symptomatic patients, the company has requested the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expand its authorization for use on asymptomatic individuals
  • According to company data, the spit test accurately identifies about 90% of positive cases when compared against a nasopharyngeal PCR test set to 35 CT
  • According to the FDA, that comparative CT is too low, and will produce too many false negatives. This, despite the scientific consensus, which states anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable as it produces enormous amounts of false positives
  • According to an April 2020 study, a CT of 17 must be used to obtain 100% confirmed real positives. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. At 33 cycles, the false positive rate is 80%. Beyond 34 cycles, the false positive rate reaches 100%
  • Because the PCR test cannot discern between live virus and dead, noninfectious viral debris, the timing of the test is important. Recent research shows the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance confirmed by viral culture is seven days, whereas the PCR test continues to detect nonviable (noninfectious) SARS-CoV-2 for a median of 34 days

For several months, experts have highlighted the true cause behind the COVID-19 pandemic, namely the incorrect use of PCR tests set at a ridiculously high cycle count (CT), which falsely labels healthy people as “COVID-19 cases.” In reality, the PCR test is not a proper diagnostic test, although it has been promoted as such.

An important question that demands an answer is whether the experts at our federal health agencies and the World Health Organization were really too ignorant to understand the implications of using this test at excessive CT, or whether it was done on purpose to create the illusion of a dangerous, out-of-control pandemic. 

Regardless, those in charge need to be held accountable, which is precisely what the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee(Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss,1 or ACU),2,3intends to do.

They’re in the process of launching an international class-action lawsuit against those responsible for using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic in order to implement economically devastating lockdowns around the world. I wrote about this in “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun” and “German Lawyers Initiate Class-Action Coronavirus Litigation.”

FDA Demands Higher False Positives

An interesting case detailed in a January 21, 2021, Buzzfeed article4 that raises those same questions in regard to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is its recent spat with Curative, a California testing company that got its start in January 2020. It has since risen to become one of the largest COVID-19 test providers in the U.S.

Curative’s most popular PCR test differs from other providers in that it uses spit swabbed from the patient’s tongue, cheek and mouth rather than from the back of the nasal cavity. 

In April 2020, the FDA issued an accelerated emergency use authorization5for the Curative spit test, but only for patients who had been symptomatic within the two weeks prior to taking the test, as the data available at that time showed it failed to catch asymptomatic “cases.”

However, the test was subsequently used off-label on individuals without symptoms anyway, and the company has been urging the FDA to expand its authorization to include asymptomatic individuals based on newer data. 

In December 2020, Curative submitted that data,6 showing its oral spit test accurately identified about 90% of positive cases when compared against a nasopharyngeal PCR test set to 35 CT.7

The FDA objected, saying that Curative was comparing its test against a PCR that had a CT that was too low, and would therefore produce too many false negatives.8 According to the FDA, the bar Curative had chosen was “not appropriate and arbitrary,” Buzzfeed reports.9

This is a curious statement coming from the FDA, considering the scientific consensus on PCR tests is that anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable.10,11,12

From the start, the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended running PCR tests at a CT of 40.13 This was already high enough to produce an inordinate number of false positives, thereby labeling healthy people as “COVID-19 cases,” but when it comes to Curative’s spit test, the FDA is demanding they compare it against PCR processed at a CT of 45, which is even more likely to produce false positives. 

Medically speaking, a “case” refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness.

The FDA’s concern is that Curative’s test is missing infections and giving infectious people a clean bill of health. However, in reality, it’s far more likely that the test is accurately weeding out people who indeed are not infectious at all and rightly should be given a clean bill of health. It seems the FDA is merely pushing for a process that will ensure a higher “caseload” to keep the illusion of widespread infection going. 

When Are You Actually Infectious?

A persistent sticking point with the PCR test is that it picks up dead viral debris, and by excessively magnifying those particles with CTs in the 40s, noninfectious individuals are labeled as infectious and told to self-isolate. In short, media and public health officials have conflated “cases” — positive tests — with the actual illness. 

Medically speaking, a “case” refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness. Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, “case,” has been arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of noninfectious viral RNA.

The research is unequivocal when it comes to who’s infectious and who’s not. You cannot infect another person unless you carry live virus, and you typically will not develop symptoms unless your viral load is high enough.

As it pertains to PCR testing, when excessively high CTs are used, even a minute viral load that is too low to cause symptoms can register as positive. And, since the test cannot distinguish between live virus and dead viral debris, you may not even be carrying live virus at all. 

These significant drawbacks are why PCR testing really only should be done on symptomatic patients, and why a positive test should be weighed as just one factor of diagnosis. Symptoms must also be taken into account. If you have no symptoms, your chances of being infectious and spreading the infection to others is basically nil, as data14 from 9,899,828 individuals have shown. 

Of these, not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive. This study even confirmed that even in cases where asymptomatic individuals had had an active infection, and had been carriers of live virus, the viral load had been too low for transmission. As noted by the authors:15

“Compared with symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding, which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2. 

In the present study, virus culture was carried out on samples from asymptomatic positive cases, and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus. All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.”

PCR Picks Up Dead Virus for Weeks After Infection Has Cleared

Because the PCR test cannot discern between live virus and dead, noninfectious viral debris, the timing of the test ends up being important. One example of this was presented in a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine,16 in which the author describes an investigation done on hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Seoul, South Korea.

Whereas the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance confirmed by cultured samples was just seven days, with the longest time frame being 12 days, the PCR test continued to pick up SARS-CoV-2 for a median of 34 days. The shortest time between symptom onset to a negative PCR test was 24 days.

In other words, there was no detectable live virus in patients after about seven days from onset of symptoms (at most 12 days). The PCR test, however, continued to register them as “positive” for SARS-CoV-2 for about 34 days. The reason this matters is because if you have no live virus in your body, you are not infectious and pose no risk to others. 

This then means that testing patients beyond, say, Day 12 to be safe, after symptom onset is pointless, as any positive result is likely to be false. But there’s more. As noted in that New England Journal of Medicine article:17

“Viable virus was identified until 3 days after the resolution in fever … Viral culture was positive only in samples with a cycle-threshold value of 28.4 or less. The incidence of culture positivity decreased with an increasing time from symptom onset and with an increasing cycle-threshold value.”

This suggests symptomology is a really important piece of the puzzle. If no viable virus is detectable beyond Day 3 after your fever ends, it’s probably unnecessary to retest beyond that point. A positive result beyond Day 3 after your fever breaks is, again, likely to be a false positive, as you have to have live virus in order to be infectious. 

Even more important, these results reconfirm that CTs above 30 are inadvisable as they’re highly likely to be wrong. Here, they found the CT had to be below 28.4 in order for the positive test to correspond with live virus. As noted by the authors:18

“Our findings may be useful in guiding isolation periods for patients with Covid-19 and in estimating the risk of secondary transmission among close contacts in contract tracing.”

Testing for Dead Viruses Will Ensure Everlasting Lockdowns

To circle back to the Curative PCR test, the company argues that the test is accurate when it comes to detecting active infection, and as CEO Fred Turner told Buzzfeed:19

“If you’re screening for a return to work and you’re picking up everyone who had COVID two months ago, no one’s going to return to work. If you want to detect active COVID, what the ‘early’ study shows is that Curative is highly effective at doing that.”

Again, this has to do with the fact that the Curative spit test has a sensitivity resembling that of a nasopharyngeal PCR set at a CT of 30. The lower CT count narrows the pool of positive results to include primarily those with higher viral loads and those who are more likely to actually carry live virus. This is a good thing. What the FDA wants Curative to do is to widen that net so that more noninfectious individuals can be labeled as a “case.” 

In an email to Buzzfeed, Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, stated that using a CT of 45 is “absolutely insane,” because at that magnification, you may be looking at a single RNA molecule, whereas “when people are sick and are contagious, they literally can have 1,000,000,000,000x that number.”20

Mina added that such a sensitive PCR test “would potentially detect someone 35 days post-infection who is fully recovered and cause that person to have to enter isolation. That’s crazy and it’s not science-based, it’s not medicine-based and it’s not public health-oriented.”21

While the FDA has issued a warning not to use the Curative spit test on asymptomatic people, Florida has dismissed the warning and will continue to use the test on symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals alike. Only Miami-Dade County is reconsidering how it is using the test, although a definitive decision has yet to be announced.22

The Lower the CT, the Greater the Accuracy

While the FDA claims high sensitivity (meaning higher CT) is required to ensure we don’t end up with asymptomatic spreaders in our communities, as reviewed above, this risk is exceedingly small. We really need to stop panicking about the possibility of healthy people killing others. It’s not a sane trend, as detailed in “The World Is Suffering from Mass Delusional Psychosis.” 

According to an April 2020 study23 in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, to get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at just 17 cycles. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. 

By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero. 

Similarly, a December 3, 2020, systematic review24 published in the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases, which assessed the findings of 29 different studies, found that “CT values were significantly lower … in specimens producing live virus culture.” In other words, the higher the CT, the lower the chance of a positive test actually being due to the presence of live (and infectious) virus. 

“Two studies reported the odds of live virus culture reduced by approximately 33% for every one unit increase in CT,” the authors noted. Importantly, five of the studies included were unable to identify any live viruses in cases where a positive PCR test had used a CT above 24. 

In cases where a CT above 35 was used, the patient had to be symptomatic in order to obtain a live virus culture. This again confirms that PCR with a CT over 35 really shouldn’t be used on asymptomatic people, as any positive result is likely to be meaningless and simply force them into isolation for no reason.

PCR Testing Based on Erroneous Paper

In closing, the whole premise of PCR testing to diagnose COVID-19 is in serious question, as the practice appears to be based on an erroneous paper that didn’t even undergo peer-review before being implemented worldwide. 

November 30, 2020, a team of 22 international scientists published a review25 challenging the scientific paper26on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 written by Christian Drosten, Ph.D., and Victor Corman (the so-called “Corman-Drosten paper”). 

According to Reiner Fuellmich,27 founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned at the beginning of this article, Drosten is a key culprit in the COVID-19 pandemic hoax. 

The scientists demand the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted due to “fatal errors,”28 one of which is the fact that it was written, and the test itself developed, before any viral isolate was available. The test is simply based on a partial genetic sequence published online by Chinese scientists in January 2020. In an Undercover DC interview, Kevin Corbett, Ph.D., one of the 22 scientists who are now demanding the paper’s retraction, stated:29

“Every scientific rationale for the development of that test has been totally destroyed by this paper … When Drosten developed the test, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate. 

They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology … the bits of the virus sequence that weren’t there they made up. They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks … 

There are 10 fatal errors in this Drosten test paper … But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it ‘donut ring science.’ There is nothing at the center of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality … 

There have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July … where they said: ‘Here’s the viral isolate.’ Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who’d been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had [COVID-19] to begin with. So, it’s all full of holes, the whole thing.

The critique against PCR testing is further strengthened by the November 20, 2020, study30 in Nature Communications, which found no viable virus in any PCR-positive cases. I referenced this study earlier, noting that not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive. 

But that’s not all. After evaluating PCR testing data from 9,899,828 people, and conducting additional live cultures to check for active infections in those who tested positive, using a CT of 37 or lower, they were unable to detect live virus in any of them, which is a rather astonishing finding. 

On the whole, it seems clear that mass testing using PCR is inappropriate, and does very little if anything to keep the population safe. Its primary result is simply the perpetuation of the false idea that healthy, noninfectious people can pose a mortal threat to others, and that we must avoid social interactions. It’s a delusional idea that is wreaking havoc on the global psyche, and it’s time to put an end to this unhealthy, unscientific way of life.

W.H.O and World Leaders have serious questions to answer in the upcoming trials for ‘Crimes against Humanity’

W.H.O and World Leaders have serious questions to answer in the upcoming trials for ‘Crimes against Humanity’

THE DAILY EXPOSE • MAY 10, 2021

Nuremberg Trial 2.0 is in preparation, with a class action lawsuit supported by thousands of lawyers and medical professionals worldwide, led by the American-German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich, who is prosecuting those responsible for the Covid-19 scandal manipulated by the Davos Forum.

In this respect, it is worth recalling that Reiner Fuellmich is the lawyer who succeeded in condemning the automobile giant Volkswagen in the case of the tampered catalytic converters, as well as succeeding in condemning Deutsche Bank as a criminal enterprise.

According to Reiner Fuellmich, all the frauds committed by German companies are derisory compared to the damage that the Covid-19 crisis has caused and continues to cause. This Covid-19 crisis should be renamed the “Covid-19 Scandal” and all those responsible should be prosecuted for civil damages due to manipulations and falsified test protocols. Therefore, an international network of business lawyers will plead the biggest tort case of all time, the Covid-19 fraud scandal, which has turned into the largest crime against humanity to ever be committed.

A Covid-19 commission of inquiry was set up in July 2020 on the initiative of a group of German lawyers with the aim of bringing an international class action lawsuit using Anglo-Saxon law.

Here’s what Reiner Fuellmich had to say on the findings of the inquiry and the questions to be answered in the forthcoming trial against the WHO and World Leaders for crimes against humanity –

The hearings of around 100 internationally renowned scientists, doctors, economists and lawyers, which have been conducted by the Berlin Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 affair since 10.07.2020, have in the meantime shown with a probability close to certainty that the Covid- 19 scandal was at no time a health issue.

Rather, it was about solidifying the illegitimate power (illegitimate because it was obtained by criminal methods) of the corrupt “Davos clique” by transferring the wealth of the people to the members of the Davos clique, destroying, among other things, small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. Platforms such as Amazon, Google, Uber, etc. could thus appropriate their market share and wealth.

The three major questions to be answered in the context of a judicial approach to the Corona Scandal are:

1) Is there a corona pandemic or is there only a PCR-test pandemic? Specifically, does a positive PCR-test result mean that the person tested is infected with Covid-19, or does it mean absolutely nothing in connection with the Covid-19 infection?

2) Do the so-called anti-corona measures, such as the lockdown, mandatory face masks, social distancing, and quarantine regulations, serve to protect the world’s population from corona? Or do these measures serve only to make people panic so that they believe, without asking any questions, that their lives are in danger — so that, in the end, the pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints?

3) Is it true that the German government was massively lobbied, more so than any other country, by the chief protagonists of this so-called corona pandemic (Mr. Drosten, virologist at Charité Hospital in Berlin; Mr. Wieler, veterinarian and head of the German equivalent of the CDC, the RKI; and Mr. Tedros, head of the World Health Organization or WHO) because Germany is known as a particularly disciplined country and was therefore to become a role model for the rest of the world for its strict and, of course, successful adherence to the corona measures?

Answers to these three questions are urgently needed because the allegedly new and highly dangerous coronavirus has not caused any excess mortality anywhere in the world, and certainly not here in Germany.

But the anti-corona measures, whose only basis are the PCR-test results, which are in turn all based on the German Drosten test, have, in the meantime, caused the loss of innumerable human lives and have destroyed the economic existence of countless companies and individuals worldwide.

These were the conclusions of the committee –

‘The corona crisis must be renamed the “Corona Scandal”

It is:

• The biggest tort case ever
• The greatest crime against humanity ever committed

Those responsible must be:

• Criminally prosecuted for crimes against humanity
• Sued for civil damages

Deaths:

• There is no excess mortality in any country
• Corona virus mortality equals seasonal flu
• 94% of deaths in Bergamo were caused by transferring sick patients to nursing homes where they infected old people with weak immune systems
• Doctors and hospitals worldwide were paid to declare deceased victims of Covid-19
• US states with and without lockdowns have comparable disease and mortality statistics

Autopsies showed:

• Fatalities almost all caused by serious pre-existing conditions
• Almost all deaths were very old people
• Sweden (no lockdown) and Britain (strict lockdown) have comparable disease and mortality statistics

Health:

• Hospitals remain empty and some face bankruptcy
• Populations have T-cell immunity from previous influenza waves
• Herd immunity needs only 15-25% population infection and is already achieved
• Only when a person has symptoms can an infection be contagious

Tests:

• Many scientists call this a PCR-test pandemic, not a corona pandemic
• Very healthy and non-infectious people may test positive
• Likelihood of false-positives is 89-94% or near certainty
• Prof. Drosten developed his PCR test from an old SARS virus without ever having seen the real Wuhan virus from China
• The PCR test is not based on scientific facts with respect to infections
• PCR tests are useless for the detection of infections
• A positive PCR test does not mean an infection is present or that an intact virus has been found
• Amplification of samples over 35 cycles is unreliable but WHO recommended 45 cycles

Illegality:

• The German government locked down, imposed social-distancing/ mask-wearing on the basis of a single opinion
• The lockdown was imposed when the virus was already retreating
• The lockdowns were based on non-existent infections
• Former president of the German federal constitutional court doubted the constitutionality of the corona measures
• Former UK supreme court judge Lord Sumption concluded there was no factual basis for panic and no legal basis for corona measures
• German RKI (CDC equivalent) recommended no autopsies be performed
• Corona measures have no sufficient factual or legal basis, are unconstitutional and must be repealed immediately
• No serious scientist gives any validity to the infamous Neil Ferguson’s false computer models warning of millions of deaths
• Mainstream media completely failed to report the true facts of the so-called pandemic
• Democracy is in danger of being replaced by fascist totalitarian models
• Drosten (of PCR test), Tedros of WHO, and others have committed crimes against humanity as defined in the International Criminal Code
• Politicians can avoid going down with the charlatans and criminals by starting the long overdue public scientific discussion

Conspiracy:

• Politicians and mainstream media deliberately drove populations to panic
• Children were calculatedly made to feel responsible “for the painful tortured death of their parents and grandparents if they do not follow Corona rules”
• The hopeless PCR test is used to create fear and not to diagnose
• There can be no talk of a second wave

Injury and damage:

• Evidence of gigantic health and economic damage to populations

Anti-corona measures have:

• Killed innumerable people
• Destroyed countless companies and individuals worldwide
• Children are being taken away from their parents
• Children are traumatized en masse
• Bankruptcies are expected in small- and medium-sized businesses

Redress:

• A class action lawsuit must be filed in the USA or Canada, with all affected parties worldwide having the opportunity to join
• Companies and self-employed people must be compensated for damages’

Is the writing on the wall for Gates, Hancock, Fauci and friends? Well the lawsuits have been filed and Reiner Fuellmich’s track record certainly suggests they don’t stand a chance.

COVID Fraud – Legal proceedings begin against W.H.O and World Leaders for ‘Crimes against Humanity’

COVID Fraud – Legal proceedings begin against W.H.O and World Leaders for ‘Crimes against Humanity’

THE DAILY EXPOSE • MAY 7, 2021

A team of over 1,000 lawyers and over 10,000 medical experts led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich have begun legal proceedings against the CDC, WHO & the Davos Group for crimes against humanity.

Fuellmich and his team present the faulty PCR test and the order for doctors to label any comorbidity death as a Covid death as fraud. The PCR test was never designed to detect pathogens and is 100% faulty at 35 cycles. All the PCR tests overseen by the CDC are set at 37 to 45 cycles. The CDC admits that any tests over 28 cycles are not admissible for a positive reliable result. This alone invalidates over 90% of the alleged covid cases / ”infections” tracked by the use of this faulty test.

In addition to the flawed tests and fraudulent death certificates, the “experimental” vaccine itself is in violation of Article 32 of the Geneva Convention. Under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited. According to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.

The “experimental” vaccine is in violation of all 10 of the Nuremberg Codes which carry the death penalty for those who seek to violate these International Laws.

The “vaccine” fails to meet the following five requirements to be considered a vaccine and is by definition a medical “experiment” and trial:

Provides immunity to the virus
This is a “leaky” gene therapy that does not provide immunity to Covid and claims to reduce symptoms yet double-vaccinated are now 60% of the patients requiring ER or ICU with covid infections.

Protects recipients from getting the virus
This gene-therapy does not provide immunity and double-vaccinated can still catch and spread the virus.

Reduces deaths from the virus infection
This gene-therapy does not reduce deaths from the infection. Double-Vaccinated infected with Covid have also died.

Reduces circulation of the virus
This gene-therapy still permits the spread of the virus as it offers zero immunity to the virus.

Reduces transmission of the virus
This gene-therapy still permits the transmission of the virus as it offers zero immunity to the virus.

The following violations of the Nuremberg Code are as follows:

Nuremberg Code #1: Voluntary Consent is Essential

No person should be forced to take a medical experiment without informed consent. Many media, political and non-medical persons are telling people to take the shot. They offer no information as to the adverse effects or dangers of this gene-therapy. All you hear from them is – “ safe and effective” and “ benefits outweigh the risks.” Countries are using lockdowns, duress and threats to force people to take this vaccine or be prohibited to participate in free society under the mandate of a Vaccine Passport or Green Pass. During the Nuremberg trials, even the media was prosecuted and members were put to death for lying to the public, along with many of the doctors and Nazis found guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.

Nuremberg Code #2: Yield Fruitful Results Unprocurable By Other Means

As listed above, the gene-therapy does not meet the criteria of a vaccine and does not offer immunity to the virus. There are other medical treatments that yield fruitful results against Covid such as Ivermectin, Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Zinc and boosted immune systems for flu and colds.

Nuremberg Code #3: Base Experiments on Results of Animal Experimentation and Natural History of Disease

This gene therapy skipped animal testing and went straight to human trials. In mRNA research that Pfizer used – a candidate study on mRNA with rhesus macaques monkeys using BNT162b2 mRNA and in that study all the monkeys developed pulmonary inflammation but the researchers considered the risk low as these were young healthy monkeys from the age of 2-4. Israel has used Pfizer and the International Court of Law has accepted a claim for 80% of the recipients having pulmonary inflammation from being injected with this gene-therapy. Despite this alarming development Pfizer proceeded to develop their mRNA for Covid without animal testing.

Nuremberg Code #4: Avoid All Unnecessary Suffering and Injury

Since the rollout of the experiment and listed under the CDC VAERS reporting system over 4,000 deaths and 50,000 vaccine injuries have been reported in America. In the EU over 7,000 deaths and 365,000 vaccine injuries have been reported. This is a grievous violation of this code.

Nuremberg Code #5: No Experiment to be Conducted if There’s Reason to Think Injury or Death Will Occur

See #4, based on fact-based medical data this gene-therapy is causing death and injury. Past research on mRNA also shows several risks that have been ignored for this current trial gene-experiment. A 2002 study on SARS-CoV-1 spike proteins showed they cause inflammation, immunopathology, blood clots, and impede Angiotensin 2 expression. This experiment forces the body to produce this spike-protein inheriting all these risks.

Nuremberg Code #6: Risk Should Never Exceed the Benefit

Covid-19 has a 98-99% recovery rate. The vaccine injuries, deaths and adverse side-effects of mRNA gene-therapy far exceed this risk. The use of “leaky” vaccines was banned for agriculture use by the US and EU due to the Marek Chicken study that shows ‘hot-viruses’ and variants emerge… making the disease even more deadly. Yet, this has been ignored for human use by the CDC knowing fully the risk of new deadlier variants emerge from leaky vaccinations. The CDC is fully aware that the use of leaky vaccines facilitates the emergence of hot (deadlier)strains. Yet they’ve ignored this when it comes to human

Nuremberg Code #7: Preparation Must Be Made Against Even Remote Possibility of Injury, Disability or Death

There were no preparations made. This gene therapy skipped animal trials. The pharmaceutical companies’ own Phase 3 human clinical trials will not conclude until 2022 /2023. These vaccines were approved under an Emergency Use only act and forced on a misinformed public. They are NOT FDA-approved.

Nuremberg Code #8: Experiment Must Be Conducted by Scientifically Qualified Persons

Politicians, media and actors claiming that this is a safe and effective vaccine are not qualified. Propaganda is not medical science. Many retail outlets such as Walmart & drive-through vaccine centers are not qualified to administer experimental medical gene-therapies to the uninformed public.

Nuremberg Code #9: Anyone Must Have the Freedom to Bring the Experiment to an End At Any Time

Despite the outcry of over 85,000 doctors, nurses, virologists and epidemiologists – the experiment is not being ended. In fact, there are currently many attempts to change laws in order to force vaccine compliance. This includes mandatory and forced vaccinations. Experimental ‘update’ shots are planned for every 6 months without any recourse to the growing number of deaths and injuries already caused by this experiment. These ‘update’ shots will be administered without any clinical trials. Hopefully this new Nuremberg Trial will put an end to this crime against humanity.

Nuremberg Code #10: The Scientist Must Bring the Experiment to an End At Any Time if There’s Probable Cause of it Resulting in Injury or Death

It is clear in the statistical reporting data that this experiment is resulting in death and injury yet all the politicians, drug companies and so-called experts are not making any attempt to stop this gene-therapy experiment from inflicting harm on a misinformed public.

What can you do to help put an end to this crime against humanity? Share this information. Hold your politicians, media, doctors and nurses accountable – that if they are complicit in this crime against humanity they too are subject to the laws set forth in the Geneva Convention and Nuremberg Code and can be tried, found guilty and put to death. Legal proceedings are moving forward, evidence has been collected and a large growing body of experts are sounding the alarm.

Visit the Covid Committee website at: https://corona-ausschuss.de/ and if you have been affected by this crime, report the event, persons involved, and as much detail to the following website:

https://www.securewhistleblower.com/

Crimes against humanity affect us all. They are a crime against you, your children, your parents, your grandparents, your community and your country and your future.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court today against Google LLC for deceptive and unfair practices used to obtain users’ location data, which Google then exploits for its lucrative advertising business.

PHOENIX – Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court today against Google LLC for deceptive and unfair practices used to obtain users’ location data, which Google then exploits for its lucrative advertising business. Arizona has brought forward this action under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act to put a stop to Google’s deceptive collection of user data and obtain monetary relief up to and including forcing Google to disgorge gross receipts arising from its Arizona activities.

“While Google users are led to believe they can opt-out of location tracking, the company exploits other avenues to invade personal privacy,” said Attorney General Mark Brnovich. “It’s nearly impossible to stop Google from tracking your movements without your knowledge or consent. This is contrary to the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and even the most innovative companies must operate within the law.”

Google derives the vast majority of its profit through selling advertisements and displaying them to users of Google’s products and services. In 2019, over 80% of Google’s revenues—$135 billion out of $161 billion total—were generated through advertising. Google collects detailed information about its users, including their physical locations, to target users for advertising in a specific geographic location. Google’s collection of location data also allows the tech giant to validate the effectiveness of ads by reporting to advertisers how often online ad clicks are converted into real-world store visits. As outlined in the lawsuit filed by Arizona, Google’s advertising revenues are largely driven by the company’s collection of detailed data about its users, including location information, often done without the users’ consent or knowledge.

The Arizona Attorney General’s Office began its consumer fraud investigation of Google in August 2018, following an Associated Press article entitled, “Google tracks your movements, like it or not”, which detailed how users are lulled into a false sense of security, believing Google provided users the ability to actually disable their Location History. Google told users that “with Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored.” But as the AP article revealed, this statement was blatantly false — even with Location History off, Google surreptitiously collects location information through other settings such as Web & App Activity and uses that information to sell ads. At the same time, Google’s disclosures regarding Web & App Activity misled users into believing that setting had nothing to do with tracking user location. Google’s account set-up disclosures made no mention of the fact that location information is collected though Web and App Activity, which is defaulted to “on,” until early-to mid-2018.

Arizona’s investigation has also revealed that Google uses deceptive and unfair practices to collect as much user information as possible and makes it exceedingly difficult for users to understand what’s being done with their data, let alone opt-out. Given the lucrative nature of Google’s advertising business, the company goes to great lengths to collect users’ location, including through presenting users with a misleading mess of settings, some of which seemingly have nothing to do with the collection of location information. According to Harvard Professor Shoshana Zuboff, “Google’s proprietary methods enable it to surveil, capture, expand, construct and claim behavioral” data “including data that users intentionally choose not to share.”

The almost 50-page complaint cites extensive testimony from Google employees given under oath and contains nearly 100 additional exhibits, including internal documents that were obtained from Google over the course of the nearly two-year investigation. The public version of the filing redacts certain information that Google has asserted is confidential; the State will be seeking to make more information public consistent with applicable court rules.

The State is being represented by Brunn W. Roysden III, Oramel H. Skinner, Joseph A. Kanefield, Michael S. Catlett, and Christopher Sloot of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office; and David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC; Guy Ruttenberg and Michael Eshaghian of Ruttenberg IP Law, APC.

A copy of the lawsuit.

State v. Google – State’s Status Report

Letter from 27 Scholars, Practitioners, and Advocates re Unsealing Google Complaint

Letter from Congressman Biggs re Unsealing Google Complaint

State’s Response to Google’s Motion for Continuance

PRESS RELEASE ARCHIVE

202105 (8)

202104 (13)

202103 (18)

202102 (13)

202101 (6)

202012 (14)

202011 (7)

202010 (11)

202009 (17)

202008 (8)

202007 (11)

202006 (14)

Pagination

Next page››

PRESS CONTACT

Katie Conner

Director of Media Relations

2005 N Central Ave.

Phoenix, AZ 85004

(602) 542-8019

Katie.Conner@azag.gov